Poll shows Obama re-elect number at 38%

posted at 8:48 am on September 27, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

A new poll from Politico has bad news for the White House as Barack Obama prepares for the grueling task of re-election. Despite a long history of American voters choosing to re-elect its Chief Executive, Obama only gets 38% of likely voters to agree that he deserves re-election, while 44% say they will definitely vote against him — and another 13% say they’re considering doing the same:

A significant majority of voters are considering voting against President Barack Obama in the 2012 election, expressing sour views of his new health care law and deep skepticism about his ability to create jobs and grow the sluggish economy, according to the latest POLITICO / George Washington University Battleground Poll.

Only 38 percent of respondents said Obama deserves to be reelected, even though a majority of voters hold a favorable view of him on a personal level. Forty-four percent said they will vote to oust him, and 13 percent said they will consider voting for someone else.

What’s the problem? ObamaCare and a lack of job creation have completely undermined Obama’s image as a moderate, pragmatic President:

It’s Obama’s policies that are hurting him right now. By a 13-point margin, voters are down on the health care law. In an especially troubling sign, more than half of self-identified independents — 54 percent — have an unfavorable opinion of the law, compared with just 38 percent who have a favorable opinion.

And by an 11-point margin, voters trust congressional Republicans to create jobs more than Obama. His approval rating stands at 46 percent, according to the poll of 1,000 likely voters, conducted Sept. 19 to Sept. 22.

Interestingly, Democrats do better without Obama on that question. They lead the GOP on the economy by two, and their standing improved since the last Politico/GWU poll last month by ten points. That hasn’t helped them much, though, as Republicans gained four points in the generic ballot in the same period. Having Obama go out aggressively on the stump may be damaging Democrats’ chances of holding back the expected midterm Republican wave.

Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee polled best against Obama, but the season is far too early for a proper assessment of the GOP field. The lack of enthusiasm for Obama presents a big problem no matter who’s running, but one that should be kept in historical perspective. First, Obama still realistically has about fourteen months to turn things around, and Presidents have enough media draw for recovery, especially Obama. Americans usually like to re-elect the man in the White House, too. In the last century, only a handful of sitting Presidents have lost their bid for re-election: George H. W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, and Herbert Hoover. (Gerald Ford was not elected in the first place, having become President through appointment as VP and then succession after Richard Nixon’s resignation.) All other Presidents who attempted re-election won a second term, and usually by handy amounts.

One thing these three examples of futility had in common, though, was bad economic environments. Hoover had made a Wall Street crash into a depression; Carter inherited the results of Keynesian tinkering by Nixon and Ford and transformed it into stagflation. Bush the Elder had reneged on his tax pledge and tipped the economy into a mild recession, from which we had already recovered by the election, but it was too late to keep Bill Clinton from winning, with a big help from Ross Perot in splitting the vote. This is why Obama realistically has about fourteen months to turn the economy around; if unemployment is still in the 8-9% level by December 2011, Democrats may wind up looking for some Hope and Change of their own to avoid a repeat of 2010 in 2012.

i wonder with all his gop bashing now, he’s probably going to double down and NOT work with the gop when they take over one or both houses…it’s his way or no way

cmsinaz on September 27, 2010 at 8:53 AM

That’s my prediction. He’d rather face a government shutdown than hand any legislative victory to the GOP. Especially one predicated on a conservative agenda.

Obama’s a rigid ideologue. I do think he’ll seek reelection, but he’ll do it running one of the nastiest and most negative campaigns ever seen(especially if Palin’s the nominee). So the next 2 years will be about demonizing the GOP, not working with them.

Obama’s a rigid ideologue. I do think he’ll seek reelection, but he’ll do it running one of the nastiest and most negative campaigns ever seen(especially if Palin’s the nominee). So the next 2 years will be about demonizing the GOP, not working with them.

Whether President Fantastic gets re-elected or not is entirely a function of the caliber of candidate the GOP puts up against him.

If we nominate another bumbling do-nothing who’s afraid to take Obama to the mat, we lose. If we nominate someone who’s willing to fight for principles and call him out on his agenda of deceit and control, we win.

Though, I’m going to stand by my prediction from 7/8/09, when I said he won’t even be the Dem nominee by the time 2012 comes around.

In all seriousness, if Huckabee wins the nomination, Obama will win another term. I for one would not vote for Huckabee. Social conservatism and fiscal liberalism is not something I would vote for. If we are going to have a tax and spender in the WH, I would rather it be a dem.

1. If the Democrats retain Congress – or most of the control over the agenda – then the economy WILL NOT recover. The only rabbit these guys have in their hat is more Socialism – and that means the Capitalists stay in their shell and don’t invest.

2. Now, when the GOP takes the House – then there is a real possibility the Capitalists will come out of their hidey-holes and start spending money on growth again – figuring (correctly) that the worst of the Socialism from Obama is over. This will cause the economy to rebound a bit – and you can bet Obama and Joe Biden will claim the credit for any rebounding.

3. Sarah Palin would beat Obama right now in a head to head – I don’t care what poll you’re looking at. No one is happy with Obama – they will either vote Palin or not show up at the polls (if election held today).

4. We face two problems if the GOP takes back Congress …

A. That Obama’s poll numbers go up with the certain economic rebound that a GOP victory would produce. Mind you – I’m not saying the GOP will do anything positive to cause the economy to rebound – but in this case, gridlock is a Capitalist’s friend.

B. Obama may not be the objective in 2012. There will be a war between the Mods and Lefty Loonies in the Democratic Party – and we may see someone like Hillary on top of the ticket. In fact – at this point I’d bet on it. I’m not sure Palin would beat Hillary today and I know Romney would not.

He should just accept reality as it is, cut his losses, not even bother running for re-election and end up doing what he said he would do in the very beginning, but never did: save the taxpayers money.

Why is Schmuck polling this high? Is it that cheezy little tv show on FOX? He comes from the same little town in Arkansas as Clinton. He will end up being another nanny state president because by then it will be anybody but Zero. Don’t think he’s up to the job, either.

In all seriousness, if Huckabee wins the nomination, Obama will win another term. I for one would not vote for Huckabee. Social conservatism and fiscal liberalism is not something I would vote for. If we are going to have a tax and spender in the WH, I would rather it be a dem.

Monkeytoe on September 27, 2010 at 9:04 AM

I’d vote for Huckster if that was my only alternative to 4 more years of Barry, but that would be a horrible choice by GOP primary voters. I think his favorable ratings are a bunch of BS. People like him because he seems like an affable, articulate guy(kinda like our crappy President). But once he has to run on an actual agenda as well as his spotty record as governor, those numbers will take a nosedive.

I hope the GOP doesn’t take back the Senate. The real matrix will be whether Obama can get unemployment significantly below 8% (his number). I don’t think he can do that with a modest recovery. Also with reapportionment, the GOP just has to win the red states, minus, NV, NM, CO and IA. I think that’s easy.

Kissmygrits on September 27, 2010 at 9:12 AM

Huck’s been poor his whole life. I don’t know if he’ll leave FOX for a presidential campaign. He might be very risk adverse.

Bush the Elder had reneged on his tax pledge and tipped the economy into a mild recession, from which we had already recovered by the election, but it was too late to keep Bill Clinton from winning, with a big help from Ross Perot in splitting the vote.

It was “too late” for the media to report the truth.

All of these factors played into the loss of Bush 41, yet even while the economy was recovering in the fourth quarter, (3.5% increase), our liberal media refused to report these facts. The Bush 41 economy would make Obama’s look like the greatest surge in prosperity, yet the media regurgitates on their own hypocrisy by refusing to admit Obama’s spending policies are a fiscal disaster.

Bush’s “read my lips” was the media’s whipping stick, while the Democrats continued apace with tax and regulation extensions designed to suck the life out of private sector businesses.

Obama’s numbers are very high; all it will take is the economy (unemployment) to just do a bit better PLUS he will be blaming everything on the next Congress (if Republicans do well) and his polling will go even higher….so Obama must be thinking he is sitting pretty good.

you notice how the msm is pushing the gop pledge has ‘no specifics’ on the sunday am shows, yet they won’t touch the fact that nancy said that they had to pass obamacare to see what was in it… or that they haven’t even passed a budget yet (FNS did touch that with hoyer)

The real matrix will be whether Obama can get unemployment significantly below 8% (his number). I don’t think he can do that with a modest recovery.

TimTebowSavesAmerica on September 27, 2010 at 9:17 AM

You must have missed Juan Williams on Fox’s Sunday show. While trying to defend Obama’s economic policies after Britt Hume had ripped him a new one, Juan screached at the top of his lungs “Had it not been for Obama’s stimulus plan the unemployment would be 16% now”.

LOL.

Guess old Juan forgot Obama himself predicted his stimulus would bring unemployment down to 8% within a year of passage.

Yep, I’ve noticed in every election cycle how our liberal media ignores these facts. The new media, like HA here, is helping to educate the public while the old MSM keeps losing their credibility daily. Watch the lies and distortions rise dramatically in the days ahead. It’s almost like we’ve got to run two campaigns—one to elect conservatives, and the other to keep the media honest.

This is why Obama realistically has about fourteen months to turn the economy around; if unemployment is still in the 8-9% level by December 2011…

I remember reading a few months back that even if monthly job growth returned to pre-recession levels, it would be mathematically impossible to get the unemployment rate below 7% before the 2012 election.

Obama may not be the objective in 2012. There will be a war between the Mods and Lefty Loonies in the Democratic Party – and we may see someone like Hillary on top of the ticket. In fact – at this point I’d bet on it. I’m not sure Palin would beat Hillary today and I know Romney would not.

HondaV65 on September 27, 2010 at 9:06 AM

If the November 2nd tsunami we’re all hoping for comes to fruition, I’d bet on it, too. I think any one of resignation, impeachment or even indictment are more likely. He’s too much of a millstone around the necks of Democrats. Party insiders will eventually turn on him, if they haven’t already.

EXACTLY! The social policies should be left to the states and if States Rights were asserted there would be no problem.
The problem is the states and activist judges have allowed the feds to intrude upon those rights not specifically granted to the Feds and which then are reserved to the States.
This is a battle that must be fought and won and the Liar In Chief knows it hence his suit against AZ.

NOPE! This 38% are the porch sittin, quart drinkin, professional baby makers and the Obese, drug and alcohol addicted disablers who are waitin on the Goberment check so theys don’t has ta work and can enjoy a life of drugs sex and hip hop that the demrat Party has enabled them with enjoying.

Need to know what welfare does? Look to any Indian Resrvation!

When this 38% becomes a majority those of us who work will be slaves to the “Don’t Wanna Works” and that is where Pinnochio is Transforming this country to!

What is surprising is how poor the Republicans have done…the status quo had decided to continue their policies that have failed, while the dems policies have totally collapsed.
This was the time for the Republicans to dump their elite status, role up their sleeves and actually do what the ordinary citizens want them to do…but they still have the McCains, Grahams of the party to keep us from moving ahead.

Bush the Elder had reneged on his tax pledge and tipped the economy into a mild recession, from which we had already recovered by the election, but it was too late to keep Bill Clinton from winning, with a big help from Ross Perot in splitting the vote.

According to the Fed, that recession ended in March of 1991, or 18 months before the 1992 election. Had the Democrat media reported it at the time, Bush might have done better, but they censored that news in order to get one of their own elected.

The NY Times finally got around to admitting that the recovery began in March of 1991, but it took them until 1999 to get around to doing so.

I always wonder who the hell these people are who still like Obama. They are invincibly ignorant.

Mojave Mark on September 27, 2010 at 9:44 AM

I can definitely identify some:
14% are black, they just won’t change because, well just because.
You have 10% of whites who are apologists, have white guilt, want to associate with the black movement (many professors, bureaucrats, etc).
Then you have 10% of crazies…every segment has 10% that are just plain nuts. Truthers, people who believe Elvis is alive, or we never landed on the moon, those type.
That leaves about 4 or 5% that won’t admit they are wrong, usually that would be higher, but in this case it is so obvious even some have to finally admit…big mistake.
38% is much lower then I ever really imagined he would move to…figuring 34% is the absolute least.

Well, if you consider that 40% of the electorate are hard core Democrats and 40% are conservatives if not Republicans, and 20% are independents, then all Øbama has left is his base and that does not bode well for his reelection.

I can definitely identify some:
14% are black, they just won’t change because, well just because.
You have 10% of whites who are apologists, have white guilt, want to associate with the black movement (many professors, bureaucrats, etc).
Then you have 10% of crazies…every segment has 10% that are just plain nuts. Truthers, people who believe Elvis is alive, or we never landed on the moon, those type.That leaves about 4 or 5% that won’t admit they are wrong, usually that would be higher, but in this case it is so obvious even some have to finally admit…big mistake.
38% is much lower then I ever really imagined he would move to…figuring 34% is the absolute least.

right2bright on September 27, 2010 at 9:57 AM

–
Your numbers look good to me… Hopefully though… with a bit of shaving here and there I still think 30% at the polls is possible for 2012. I.e. some of those in the never admit wrong group (bold), just might pull the non-Obama lever… on purpose once the curtain closes.
–

I like your analysis and the break down. I think it’s pretty accurate. His numbers are already lower than I thought they’d go and still dropping. I think he’s going to bottom out down around 30% or a little lower.

I have to totally agree. One of the things that worries me about ’12 is that a GOP Congress will stop the bleeding, and people may get complacent enough to re-elect the incumbent.

However, I’d say the thing that helped Clinton in ’96 was the beginnings of the Internet Boom (part dotcom bubble, part e-commerce r3v0lut10n). I think to get this serious a change in our economic outlook again, it will involve space travel—but then again, I could be wrong. Sitting on some geek’s computer somewhere will be that thing that makes the economy take off again, in spite of itself.

One reason the Left has kept winning the argument is that they have been lucky enough to have something come along that grows the American economy despite the bad things Leftist policies do to it: World wars, technological advancements, and the like. So when those on the Right argue that Leftist ideas are bad and harm the economy, they look like fools when the economy grows anyway. However, now there isn’t much further we can go technologically, short of perfecting matter teleportation or cold fusion. We no longer have the manufacturing base to profit from the buildup to another world war. And Leftist policies are finally failing in the absence of anything to come along and bail the economy out.

About that 38% of likely voters. It’s most of the latte liberals, all of the blacks, and at least 3/4 of the Hispanics. It might be close to a floor because the blacks are reflexively pro-Obama and the libs and the Hispanics are reflexively anti-Republican. They would simply love to vote *against* Sarah Palin even if they’re not voting *for* Obama.

That said, if Obama decides not to run for a second term, the dynamics change quite a bit, as I don’t think Hillary or Slow Joe could count on the black voters showing up, and the turnout models probably change as well.

It was the NBER. And, if you believe the recession ended last year, you’re part of the delusional 30% of this country, as represented by Barney Frank–see below. We’re about to embark on QE2, and the Fed’s trashing the dollar to pump up the market.

We are being set up for a very violent election in 2012. The idiot Eric Holder has demonstrated that if you are black and engage in election violence, you will not be prosecuted. Look for SEIU and other unionized thugs to copy the New Black Panthers tactics. Look for large-scale cheating in the democratic districts of the big democratic cities.

This will not necessarily be D on R, if Bammie gets into a tough primary with other democratics, will black democratics be beating up white democratics at the primary polls? Could get ugly.

That is what losers say (not you, but the elite Republicans).
They had a chance to roll up their sleeves and meet with the ordinary people who are tired of insider politics.
Each demographic has someone to respond to…Brown did it in Mass…but Graham is sucking it in SC, McCain the same in Ariz.
They need to get behind the new wave of Republicans, and they are afraid of them. The Pauls, Angles, Rubio’s, etc., people are tired of “insiders”.
And you are right “What could THEY have done”, nothing because they have basically done nothing for the past decade…

For those who ask “who are these 38%” I’ve got one in my own family. She complains about the economy and if you mention that just maybe Obama may be “partly” to blame for it she goes viral.To her the thought of any Republican winning any office is repugnant. Just could never vote for one. Nothing rational will convince her.

When this 38% becomes a majority those of us who work will be slaves to the “Don’t Wanna Works” and that is where Pinnochio is Transforming this country to!
dhunter on September 27, 2010 at 9:48 AM

Absolutely right. Which is why socialism/welfare state is considered evil by the Church. It promotes injustice and immorality on both sides, the people it steals from and the people it encourages to sloth. Yet how many priests/bishops/social-justice ‘Catholics’/lib Protestants advocate/vote for it? Arghhhh…. If any man will not work, neither let him eat. It’s right there, but ‘social justice’ has so distorted the teachings of Christ on the poor that many don’t even recognize it.

As a social conservative, there is so much about the Democrat platform that is evil besides the positions on ‘social issues’ they promote. No Catholic or Protestant Christian can vote for these people and follow Christ’s teaching on anything. The Democrats are truly the party of death, both physical and spiritual. They suck the life out of body and soul.

One reason the Left has kept winning the argument is that they have been lucky enough to have something come along that grows the American economy despite the bad things Leftist policies do to it: …
Sekhmet on September 27, 2010 at 10:24 AM

Sometimes they are lucky, and sometimes they use total manipulation. Just like the ‘collapse’ that happened right after McCain picked Sarah Palin and their poll numbers and Republican enthusiasm spiked. How convenient for the Democrats.

We even had people warning/predicting it, but our candidate didn’t fight and put the blame where it belonged. If the GOP retakes either chamber of congress, and the economy turns around, someone has to point this out, loudly and constantly. It will take a lot of money and a candidate willing to shout it to the rooftops. That isn’t Mitt, or Huckabee.

He doesn’t care. All he wanted is to have been the “first black president”. He can’t wait to go out and become a billionaire, pronto (his claim “at some point you’ve made enough money” notwithstanding).

He and Soros are putting schemes in place in Brazil oil (environement be dam*ed) and elsewhere to beat Gore at getting rich quickly. Obama will be a billionaire based on absolutely nothing – the irony of all Capitalism. The fools are the American people. May those who fell for such charlatanery live with the plague for a long time.

We are being set up for a very violent election in 2012. The idiot Eric Holder has demonstrated that if you are black and engage in election violence, you will not be prosecuted.

slickwillie2001 on September 27, 2010 at 10:57 AM

And, the Democrat Media won’t report it either. Goebbels would be proud of how they almost totally censored last Friday’s Christopher Coates testimony.

To their “credit”, the WaPo did cover it in print in their “A” section on Saturday, but buried the relevant facts at the very end of the article, such as how Coates was a Clinton appointee and former ACLU lawyer.